MISHNAH: One who makes a vow to abstain from vegetables is permitted squash, but Rebbi Aqiba forbids it. They said to Rebbi Aqiba, does it not happen that a person says to his agent, buy vegetables for us, and he says, I found only squash¹? He said to them, that is true. Would he ever say, I found only legumes²? But squash is contained in the notion of “vegetable”³. He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans and permitted dried ones.

footnotes: ¹ “Vegetables” are grown in a vegetable garden and eaten raw or as a side dish. Squash is produced without irrigation and is not eaten raw. The person sent to buy vegetables will not buy squash without separate instructions. ² Legumes (Arabic قُطْنِيَّة) are seeds, such as peas and lentils, to be ground into flour. As the last sentence of the Mishnah makes clear, legumes not ready to be ground into flour are vegetables. The person sent to buy vegetables will never ask for permission to buy legumes. ³ The Babylonian Mishnah adds: “But legumes are not contained in the notion of ‘vegetables’ ”.

HALAKHAH: Does Rebbi Aqiba think “I found, I did not find”⁴? Then one who forbids meat to himself should be forbidden fish and grasshopper meat since, if a man says to another, buy meat for us, he will return and say, I found only fish⁵! But Rebbi Aqiba must think that squash are vegetables, but the rabbis think that squash are not vegetables. That applies to legal situations. “The vegetables of this garden are sold;” if squash were there, they would be sold in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, not sold in the opinion of the rabbis. The same applies to declarations of abandonment⁶ or dedications.

footnotes: ⁴ Does R. Aqiba hold that any usual substitute comes under the category of the original? The Babli, 54a, holds that this is R. Aqiba’s opinion. The Babli must hold that a person sent to buy meat will not suggest fish as a substitute. ⁵ Fish and grasshoppers do not come under the category of “meat” since they can be cooked with milk. (Yemenite Jews used to roast grasshoppers in clay pots used for neither meat nor milk). ⁶ If somebody declares his vegetables as ownerless or dedicates them to the Temple, for the rabbis he does not include squash, for R. Aqiba he does.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the minority opinion here is the majority opinion there and vice-versa. As it was stated: “One who makes a vow to abstain from meat is forbidden all kinds of meat, is forbidden head, feet, neck, heart, and liver⁸. But he is permitted fish meat and grasshoppers⁹ 8:1, Tosephta Ḥulin 8:2.. In this vein, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, intestines are not meat and those who eat them are not humans.”

footnotes: ⁸ The Babli adds, “and fowl”, cf. Note 7. ⁹ This statement also in Mishnah Ḥulin

Everybody agrees that a person who vows to forbid gourd to himself is permitted vegetables, as it was stated: A person who makes a vow to abstain from a main object is forbidden the peripherals; if he vows from the peripherals, he is permitted the main object. One who vows to abstain from meat is forbidden sinews, he who vows to abstain from sinews is permitted meat. Where do they disagree? About Egyptian gourd. But everybody agrees that Greek gourds¹⁰ 1:5. are vegetables. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All sorts of gourd and cabbage which we eat are Greek gourds. Rebbi Jehudah bar Ṣeradia says, qarmals¹², “orchard”, as a reference to “tree fruits”? (E. G.)} are vegetables. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose asked, are qarmals subject to tithes? ¹¹ 2:10, Notes 98–101, dealing with the rules of the Sabbatical year. The statement of Bar Qappara there is attributed to R. Jonah. Bar Qappara stated, qarmals are free from tithes. That is, as long as they did not form gourds; but when they formed gourds they are like vegetables. Rebbi Yose instructed that it is forbidden to sip water from colocasia leaves because they are food for deer.

footnotes: ¹⁰ Cf. Kilaim ¹² Neither the family of plants אפומלייא nor the individual plants mentioned here have been determined, except for the last one. In Arabic, נבע is a tree from which arrows and bows are made. {Perhaps cf. Greek πωμάριον, τό, Latin pomarium ¹¹ From Ševi‘it

Is one who makes a vow to abstain from vegetables permitted kinds of ‘pvmlyy’, as, for example, nb‘h, msrvlh, plvlyh¹², “orchard”, as a reference to “tree fruits”? (E. G.)}, and taro¹³. ¹⁴ 1:6, Note 273. Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqolah and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both say taro is like a vegetable for tithes, the sabbatical year, peah, and kilaim. For vows it is problematic.

footnotes: ¹² Neither the family of plants אפומלייא nor the individual plants mentioned here have been determined, except for the last one. In Arabic, נבע is a tree from which arrows and bows are made. {Perhaps cf. Greek πωμάριον, τό, Latin pomarium ¹³ Colocasia, Greek κολοκασία, Arabic קֻלקָאס. Its root is used to produce a kind of flour in Africa; hence, it is an intermediate between a vegetable and a legume. The only problem is that of vows (e. g., if a person makes a vow to abstain from vegetables), since in matters of vows one does not follow technical usage but the meaning in local dialects. Hence, there may be places where taro is commonly subsumed under vegetables and other places where it is not. ¹⁴ Text from Peah

If somebody makes a vow to abstain from vegetables, would he be permited dried ones? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans and permitted dried ones.” He mentioned only Egyptian beans, a kind which has a threshing floor¹⁵. Therefore, anything which has no threshing floor is forbidden even if dried. ¹⁶ If somebody makes a vow to abstain from bulbous plants¹⁷, p. 455. he is forbidden green melon¹⁸ 1:2, Notes 38–39., squash, water melon, sweet melon¹⁸ 1:2, Notes 38–39. and all tree fruits. If somebody makes a vow to abstain from sheep meat, he is permitted lambs, pidgeon chicks¹⁹, and milk²⁰. But if he said, which grew this year, he is forbidden all of these. ²¹ 76b. If somebody makes a vow to abstain from cider, he is forbidden everything sweet and permitted wine. That is, following those who say that vows are interpreted in the vernacular²² 76b. It seems that in Mishnaic times, the sweetness of the cider was the determinig factor.. But following those who say, vows are interpreted in biblical Hebrew²³, the Torah used “cider” as an expression for wine; “your cider”²⁴ 12:17, 14:23, 18:4., that is wine.

footnotes: ¹⁵ I. e., Egyptian beans are separated from their hulls and stored in quantity. A contract for delivery of Egyptian beans requires delivery of dried ones. A vegetable is permitted in dry form only if that dry form is traded as a separate kind. ¹⁶ Tosephta 4:3. ¹⁷ This translation follows S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-f shutaḥ Nedarim ¹⁸ Cf. Kilaim ¹⁸ Cf. Kilaim ¹⁹ These have nothing to do with sheep; pigeons are only mentioned for inclusion in the next clause. ²⁰ Sheep’s milk. ²¹ Tosephta 4:3, Babli Yoma ²² R. Joḥanan, Halakhah 6:1; everybody’s opinion in the Babli, Yoma ²³ R. Joshiah, Halakhah 6:1. ²⁴ Deut.

MISHNAH: One who makes a vow to abstain from flour is forbidden dry Egyptian beans²⁵, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, he is forbidden only the Five Kinds²⁶ 6:1 (Note 89), Kilaim 1:1 (Notes 2,3), Ḥallah 1:1 (Note 1). Only these contain gluten which produces sour dough.. Rebbi Meїr says, one who makes a vow to abstain from produce²⁷ is forbidden only the Five Kinds but he who makes a vow to abstain from flour is forbidden everything²⁸, but permitted tree fruits²⁹ and vegetables.

footnotes: ²⁵ Not only Egyptian beans but all legumes (Note 2) ground into flour, as explained at the end. Egyptian beans are only mentioned because of Mishnah 1. ²⁶ Wheat, barley, spelt, foxtail, and oats; cf. Berakhot ²⁷ In Biblical language, תבואה is all agricultural produce. In rabbinic language, the word is used only for cereals. ²⁸ Not everything but every cereal and legume. ²⁹ Even carob fruit which sometimes is ground into a kind of flour.

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow,” etc. What is Rebbi Meїr’s reason? What the rain produces from the earth³⁰. What is the reason of the rabbis? Flour is עבור³¹. 5:12 to indicate grains used to make bread..

footnotes: ³⁰ Arabic دجز “to be dark, rainy”. ³¹ The expression עבור is used in Jos

³³ 1:2, the remainder from Halakhah Ḥallah 1:3, Notes 105, 110–112 Cf. Tosephta Nedarim 4:3. He who makes a vow not to use bread or produce is forbidden them, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Therefore, is he who makes a vow not to use bread or produce forbidden everything according to the rabbis? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “He who makes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these.” How do we hold? If he uses “bread” in the biblical sense, then also if he says “produce” it is meant in the biblical sense. He should be forbidden everything since it is written (Deut. 22:9): “The produce of the vineyard.” If he simply says “bread”; only from wheat or barley is it simply called “bread”. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it, at a place where one eats bread from all [kinds], only from the five kinds it is simply called “bread”.

footnotes: ³³ The quote is from Mishnah Ḥallaḥ

MISHNAH: One who made a vow to abstain from garments is permitted sack-cloth, carpets, and goat’s hair cloth. If he said, a qônām that wool shall not come onto me, he is permitted to cover himself with shorn wool; that linen should not come upon me, he is permitted to cover himself with linen fibers³⁴. Rebbi Jehudah says, everything refers to the vow. If he was carrying³⁵ and sweating and smelling badly, when he said, a qônām that no wool or flax should be on me, he is permitted to wear but forbidden to carry on his back.

footnotes: ³⁴ It is assumed that “wool” and “linen” refer to garments made from these materials, not to the materials in themselves. R. Jehudah disagrees and describes a scenario where the opposite would be true. ³⁵ A load of raw wool or linen.

HALAKHAH: “One who made a vow to abstain from garments,” etc. ³⁶ One who made a vow to abstain from clothing is permitted sack-cloth, carpet, and goat’s hair cloth, leather apron³⁷, and bandages³⁸ which Lewis and Short translate by “bandages for upper thighs”. {Compare also femorale, -is, n., “covering for the thigh” (E. G.)} Maimonides (Commentary to Kelim27:6) defines פמליא as a “muslin headscarf”.. He is forbidden fascia³⁹ “band, bandage, breast band, diadem” (Lewis and Short). and belt⁴⁰ cf. Berakhot 9:7, Note 258.. One who vows to abstain from clothing is forbidden all kinds of clothing but permitted these. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: If one said, a qônām, that I shall not wear a garment, that I shall not cover myself with clothing⁴¹ 10, Note 110, Ma‘serot 3, Note 156), is not answered.? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if he said, a qônām for anything that is generally used to cover oneself and a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; generally⁴² he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is permitted the material itself. What is an example? For example, sheepskin⁴³. For anything that is generally used to cover oneself but no derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is forbidden the material itself. What is an example? For example, goatskin⁴⁴. And anything that is generally not used to cover oneself but a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he intended only the derivative. What is an example? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example raw cotton⁴⁵.

footnotes: ³⁶ A similar text in Tosephta 4:3; a longer list in the Babli, 55b. ³⁷ Latin scortea, sc. vestis. ³⁸ By consensus of the moderns, from Buxtorf to Lieberman, this is Latin feminalia, -ium, n., ³⁹ fascia, -ae, f. ⁴⁰ Latin funda, ⁴¹ Is anything permitted to a person abstaining from garments and clothing? The question, more typical for R. Jeremiah than R. Ze‘ira (cf. Terumot ⁴² Usually amended to: If he vowed to abstain from the material. The emendation seems to be a corruption; the text requires an investigation of the vower’s intention. ⁴³ Sheepskin can be made into coats but wool is textile material in its own right. ⁴⁴ Goat’s hair is used for doormats but not usually for garments. ⁴⁵ This is not usable unless freed from wood particles.

So is the Mishnah: If he was carrying and sweating; when he said, a qônām that no wool or flax should be on me, he is forbidden to wear them but permitted to carry them on his back⁴⁶ that wool should be on me, he is forbidden to wear but permitted to carry it. If he was carrying wool and sweating; when he said, a qônām that no wool should be on me, he is permitted to wear it but forbidden to carry it on his back.” In that version, the meaning of עוֹלה על has to be determined by the context..

footnotes: ⁴⁶ This text seems to imply that in popular usage, עוֹלה על was used only for garments, not for loads. In Tosephta (4:4) and Babli (55b), the text is: “If he was wearing wool, was uncomfortable, and said, a qônām

MISHNAH: One who vows not to use the house is permitted the upper floor, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that the upper floor is part of the house. One who vows not to use the upper floor is permitted the house.

HALAKHAH: “One who vows not to use the house,” etc. The opinion of Rebbi Meïr is reasonable for a city dweller⁴⁷.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ In rabbinic (and also modern) Hebrew, בַּיִת has two different meanings. It may mean “building” in a general sense; but applied to dwellings it usually means “appartment”; in talmudic Hebrew often “ground floor one-room appartment”. In most cases in a city, two different families dwell in the “house”, the ground floor, and in the upper floor. But a farmer uses the ground floor as a dwelling and the upper floor for storage; for him, “house” and upper floor form a unit. Therefore, practice has to follow R. Meïr in a city and the Sages in the countryside.On the other hand, a mention of the upper floor certainly excludes the ground floor.

MISHNAH: One who vows not to use the bed⁴⁸ is permitted the couch, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, a couch is included in the notion of bed. One who vows not to use the couch is permitted the bed.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Again, “bed” can mean any appliance used to sleep on, or the particular implement called “bed” in the trade. R. Meïr assumes that the narrow meaning is understood since this is the most frequent use, but the Sages include all lexical meanings of the word.

HALAKHAH: “One who vows not to use the bed,” etc. ⁵¹ 3:1 (5d 1. 70) and Mo‘ed Qaṭan 3:5, 83a 1. 11; explained in Berakhot 3, Notes 22–35 (pp. 261–264). Both paragraphs are paralleled in the Babli, 56a/b. It was stated: “A dargesh is put upright and is not turned over. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he removes its qlwnṭryn and that is enough.” Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose, if a couch has posts which are upright and removed together with it, he takes them off and that is enough.

footnotes: ⁵¹ This paragraph and the next are also in Berakhot

What is a couch and what is a dargesh? Rebbi Jeremiah said, one that one plaits on its body is a couch and one that one does not plait on its body is a dargesh. But have we not stated (Kelim 16:1) “Bed and crib after he rubs them with fish skin.” If it is plaited on its body, why does he rub? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it with those Caesarean cribs that have holes.

MISHNAH: One who vows not to use a town is permitted to enter its domain⁵³ 5:4. but forbidden to enter its suburbs⁵⁴. But one who vows not to use a house is forbidden inwards from the doorpost⁵⁵.

footnotes: ⁵³ The domain of a city is a rectangular area whose boundaries are 2000 cubits (one mile) from the last house in Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western directions. A town dweller is permitted to walk in this domain on the Sabbath. Cf. Soṭah ⁵⁴ A house is defined as suburban if it is outside the city wall but connected to the wall by a row of houses where no two houses are more than 70 cubits apart. This also implies that the person making the vow may not approach a suburban house closer than 70 cubits. ⁵⁵ While a house opening onto a common courtyard has the 4 cubits in front of its door as its proper domain which no other dweller of the courtyard may use to deposit his wares, the maker of the vow is not excluded from stepping on that domain.

HALAKHAH: “One who vows not to use a town,” etc. From where that the suburbs of a town are like the town? It is written⁵⁶ 5:13; this is written before the description of the conquest of Jericho. In the Babli, 56b, the argument is in the name of R. Joḥanan. Since for the Sages, the biblical meaning of a word has precedence over the meaning in the vernacular, one tries to have a biblical reference for the Sages’ opinion., “it happened when Joshua was in Jericho.” How could he have been in Jericho? Is it not written that⁵⁷ 6:1: “Jericho was closed and besieged because of the Children of Israel; no one left and no one entered.” “Jericho was closed and besieged,” and you say so? Rebbi Judan bar Shalom said, he was in a suburb. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: It happened in Jericho⁵⁸ 8, Note 127..

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Jos. ⁵⁷ Jos. ⁵⁸ The argument does not prove anything; nobody can be sure that the editor of the book of Joshua follows a chronological order; cf. Soṭa

Rebbi Mana asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows they follow the vernacular⁵⁹? Is it not the way of a person who sees another one outside the gate to say, I saw him in Tiberias⁶⁰?

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Even the Sages should not be interested in the biblical acceptation of a word if it is a matter of interpretation of a vow. ⁶⁰ The common acceptation of the word is identical with the biblical.

MISHNAH: ‘These fruits shall be qônām for me, a qônām they shall be for my mouth’, he is forbidden what is exchanged for them or what grows from them⁶¹. ‘That I shall not eat, that I shall not taste,’ he is permitted what is exchanged for them, or what grows from them if the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear⁶² 9:6 as arum, garlic, and onion., even second generation growth is forbidden.

footnotes: ⁶¹ Since he forbade himself any usufruct. ⁶² Defined in Terumot

HALAKHAH: ‘These fruits shall be qônām for me,’ etc. How far⁶³ 9:7, Notes 82–83, referring to growth from garlic and onions forbidden as ṭevel. The Babli, 57b, refers to a more lenient opinion discussed in Terumot 7:7, Note 121.? It comes, as Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is forbidden for three harvests, but the fourth is permitted. Here, it is the same.

footnotes: ⁶³ How far is the growth of replanted garlic and onions forbidden if there is a vow not to eat from them. The reference is to Terumot

MISHNAH: If one says to his wife, a qônām shall be anything you work for, a qônām shall it be for my mouth, a qônām shall it be to my mouth; he is forbidden what is exchanged for it⁶⁴ or what grows from it⁶⁵. ‘That I shall not eat, that I shall not taste,’ he is permitted what is exchanged for them, or what grows from them if the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear⁶² 9:6 as arum, garlic, and onion., even second generation growth is forbidden. ‘What you prepare I would eat until Passover⁶⁶ if …”. The Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. read אֵינִי “I do not” for Yerushalmi אֲנִי “I would”; the meaning is the same., what you make I would wear until Passover,’ if she made before Passover, he may eat or wear after Passover.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ If the wife earned money, any usufruct of that money is forbidden to her husband. ⁶⁵ If the wife planted a tree or grew agricultural produce, fruit and produce are forbidden to her husband. ⁶² Defined in Terumot ⁶⁶ In all the following statements it is understood that the husband said, “it shall be a qônām

HALAKHAH: “If one says to his wife,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “What you prepare until Passover I shall not eat, what you make until Passover I shall not wear”.

MISHNAH: ‘What you prepare until Passover I would eat what you make until Passover I would wear if she made before Passover, he is forbidden to eat or wear after Passover.

HALAKHAH: “What you prepare,” etc. So is the Mishnah: ‘What you make until Passover I shall wear’⁶⁷.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ It seems that the text intends to read Mishnah 10 before Mishnah 9 and to emphasize the positive statement in Mishnah 9. These and the following two Mishnaiot emphasize that word order does count.

MISHNAH: ‘That you provide me with usufruct until Passover if you would go to your father’s house until Tabernacles⁶⁸ that his wife cannot have anything from him until Passover (in the spring) if she goes to her father’s house before Tabernacles (next fall). It is obvious that if the wife goes before Passover, she is forbidden until Passover (and she should not have any usufruct from her husband now since maybe she will go afterwards). But if she goes during the six months between Passover and Tabernacles, any usufruct she had before Passover would be retroactively forbidden; therefore, he would transgress the commandment not to profane vows (by formulating his vow in a way which invites violating it) and she could be punished for violating his vow. While this interpretation seems to fit the language of the Mishnah (and is accepted as obvious by Maimonides in his Commentary), the Yerushalmi in the Halakhah rejects the idea that the wife could be guilty because of the husband’s vow and reads the Mishnah as given in the translation, that the husband forbids himself any usufruct from his wife. Therefore, he cannot have any usufruct now since she later might defy his instructions. There is no reason to think that the text of the Halakhah be corrupt..’ If she went before Passover, she is forbidden to deliver usufruct to him until Passover, after Passover “he should not profane his word⁶⁹. 30:3..”

footnotes: ⁶⁸ In the interpretation of the Babli, 15 a/b, the husband after Tabernacles makes a vow of qônām ⁶⁹ Num

HALAKHAH: “That you would have usufruct from me,” etc. He is forbidden to have usufruct from her immediately, for maybe she would go after Passover and it would turn out that his having usufruct would be retroactively [forbidden].

MISHNAH: ‘That you provide me with usufruct from you until Tabernacles if you would go to your father’s house until Passover.’ If she went before Passover, she is forbidden to deliver usufruct to him until Tabernacles; but she is permitted to go after Passover.

HALAKHAH: “That you would have usufruct from me until Tabernacles,” etc. He is forbidden to have usufruct from her immediately, for maybe she would go after Passover and it would turn out that his having usufruct would be retroactively [forbidden].